1

ESSnet CultureESSnet Culture

Cologne, Eurostat ESSnet workshop, 27-28 October 2011

Ministère de la Culture

Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

ESSNet on culture Statistics:CONTEXT agreement number: 10401.2008.002-2009.352

> Eurostat collaborative project (Open Method of Coordination) – ESSNet on culture Statistics (September 2009 – August 2011) for developing methodological works and not producing data

Financing: Commission: 500.000.€ (90%) and 5 MS: 55.555,57.€ (10%)

• Coordinator:Coordinator: LuxembourgLuxembourg• Leader working group 1: FranceFrance• Leader working group 2: Czech RepublicCzech Republic• Leader working group 3: Estonia• Leader working group 4: The Netherlands

ESSNet on culture Statistics2009-2011

• Eurostat grant agreement No 10401.2008.002-2009.35

• Main objectives of the methodological project : – to establish a permanent system of coherent and comparable

statistical information on culture and to link these to the socio-economic development of Member States;

– to conclude on relevant indicators reflecting the cultural diversity in Europe based on definitions as well as on monitoring and evaluating cultural policies.

ESSNet on culture Statistics2009-2011

• In detail, these goals are:– Revise the European Statistical Framework (on basis of LEG-

Culture project);

– Improve and develop the existing methodological base for future cultural statistics;

– Define indicators and variables that make it possible to describe and study the cultural sector in all its complexity;

– Provide a national experience to allow a wider and more advanced analysis of the data.

ESSNet on culture statistics: Partners

• 11 ‘Participant-countries’: AT, BE, CZ, DK, EE, FI, FR, LU, NL, SE, UK.

• 16 ‘Member-countries’: BG, DE, ES, GR, HU, IT, LV, LT, MT, PL, PT, RO, SK, SI, CH, TR.

• 25 MS except: Croatia and Ireland + 1 accession State: Turkey + 1 EFTA-State: CH

6

ESSnet-Culture statistics: 4 task forces

• General ESSnet objective: to establish a permanent system of coherent and comparable statistical information on culture

• With specific themes on:

– Framework and definitions (TF1): delimitation of cultural statistics;

– Financing and expenditure (TF2): measure of public and private funding for culture;

– Cultural industries (TF3): economic indicators and employment;

– Participation and social aspects (TF4): studies of cultural practices and social impacts of culture.

ESSnet-Culture statistics: meetings

• Eurostat: Steering committee: 4 meetings• Eurostat: Working group on cultural statistics: 2 meetings• ESSnet culture: Coordination meetings: 4 meetings• ESSnet culture: Restricted meetings: 16 meetings• Of which: promotion meetings in Amsterdam, London, Stockholm

and Tallin• ESSnet culture: Enlarged meetings: 2 meetings• Eurostat: Directors of Social Statistics• Eurostat meetings: Workshop meetings: 2 meetings• Commission: CAC meetings: 2 meetings• Hungarian Presidency: Contribution of culture to the implementation

of the Europe2020 Strategy• Pearle: Conference Theatre Federation• UNESCO: Meeting on Cultural Employment Statistics

ESSnet-Culture statistics: meetings

• Coordination and leaders:

• Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Luxembourg • and The Netherlands

• Together

• More than 9.000 hours

Final Report

10

TF1: framework and definitions

• On the basis of the LEG 2000 framework, structured on:– cultural domains: common for the productive dimensions as well as for

the demand and social side;

– crossed by economic functions (creation, production, etc.)

• Aims = the production of data, hence:– use of statistical classifications (firstly economic ones, NACE, ISCO);

– review of existing sources (mainly harmonized EU surveys for pragmatism and to enhance comparability);

– list of future debates (creativity, spill-over effects, EU2020 strategy, etc.)

• Consider openings: a «core framework of cultural activities» and «related cultural activities»

11

Economic layer: the visual matrix of cultural activities

From the LEG to ESSnet:+ 2 domains (advertising

and art crafts)+ 1 function (management/regulation)

Main choices are justified by: i) focusing on creationii) production of data

Compared with the FCS2009 of UNESCO: coherency but more restricted boundaries(exclusion of software, telecoms, recreation, sports, natural heritage, supporting materials)

12

• The conceptual cultural framework: to start from a list of theoretical cultural activities

• The operational cultural framework: to identify the statistical classification (NACE & CPA, 2008) codes and agree on them

From theoretical activities to statistical ones

01. Heritage

02. Archives

03. Libraries

04. Books & Press

05. Visual arts

06. Performing arts

07. Audiovisual

08. Architecture

09. Advertising10. Art Crafts

Cultural activities

4. Preservation

5. Training

6. Management/Regulation

Economic FunctionsDomains

1. Creation

2. Production/Publishing

3. Dissemination/Trade

13

The operational framework

• Situation and complexities:– Cultural activities are often scattered and disintegrated in

several statistical classes: performing arts creation in both 90.01 (e.g. actors) and 90.03 (e.g. composers);

– Often only spotted with product level (CPA): advertising creation, only in detailed CPA code 73.11.11/13;

– Some statistical activities include non cultural content (71.11 architectural and engineering activities).

• 29 classes at 4-digits level of NACE Rev.2 to collect EU economic data on cultural activities: 22 totally cultural, 7 mainly

• But only 6 groups (at 3-digits level): 591, 592, 601, 602, 741, 900) and 3 divisions (at 2-digits) entirely cultural (59, 60, 90)

14

The operational framework

• Some of the statistical cultural activities included:

15

To TF3 cornerstones: economic indicators and employment

• Harmonize data collection for ‘cultural industries’– specify the vocabulary used for the economic characteristics of the

cultural sector

• Propose relevant indicators for the production of a core data set concerning the socio-economic development

• Focus on employment

• While meeting policy needs, cultural sector’s contribution to:– Smart growth – indicators that reflect how culture contributes to the education,

research and innovation, digital society;

– Sustainable growth – what is the business environment of the cultural industries and how cultural sector influences the economic environment as a whole;

– Inclusive growth – what is the role of culture in creating jobs, growing welfare and social inclusion

16

Availability of cultural data

• Existing data sources: harmonised (e.g. EU-LFS, SBS, COMEXT), national data

• Though limits, for instance: – SBS - only market-oriented

– limited coverage of cultural domains:• No EU coverage of Heritage (except museums) neither of Visual

arts, nor of Performing arts

• E.g.: SBS: no data on some classes (90 Creative arts, 91 Heritage)

– or too aggregated level of classification (as NACE or ISCO in the EU-LFS) while detailed class is necessary for the correct measuring of the cultural sector

17

Employment matrix

• Based on TF1 cultural framework of activities

• Methodology with 2 main components:– the whole employment of the cultural sector (all occupations in

cultural activities defined in NACE codes) (A + C),

– the cultural occupations in the other economic activities (B)

18

Indicators manual

• In the short run: necessity to update the present methodology on employment with NACE Rev.2 and ISCO-08 classifications:

> for production of regular annual data

• Indicators proposed on the basis of already existing Eurostat statistical data sources:

> short list of 11 key indicators related to:

– entrepreneurship, employment, import and export of the cultural goods as well as ICT in the cultural sector

19

TF2: financing and consumption

• Main objectives achieved through: • Inventory of the data sources: mapping and analysis of national

data on public financing and HBS expenditure, more specifically:

> gross consolidated expenditure, direct receipts and HBS expenditure

• Compilation of the methodology and suggestions for improving statistics on public and HBS expenditure on culture

20

Public financing

• Pilot survey based on gross consolidated public expenditure on culture:– disparate availability of data in Member States

– unconsolidated data in some countries

– various national practices of breakdown by cultural domains

– difficulties to split data by central/regional/local level

– considerable divergences as concerns the implementation of COFOG classification

• Conclusions:– national practices and context hinder a lot comparability of data

– proposal for using a shortened table to collect data in the near future

– need for assessment of the quality and comparability of data on cultural sector collected by Eurostat (public finance)

21

Private financing

• Household Budget Survey: harmonized survey using the COICOP-HBS (Classification of individual consumption by purpose)

– identification of relevant codes

– national methodologies (HBS in general) still vary and harmonization is to be emphasized

• Conclusions:– imperfections in describing cultural spendings

– more analysis on cultural consumption possible thanks to HBS

22

TF4: cultural practices and social participation

• Political context: growing interest in well-being and quality of life and need for indicators for well-being – (Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi report; GDP and beyond; inclusive society, etc.)

• Major changes in cultural practices (ICT) to be assessed

• Analysis of European Surveys: – Eurobarometers (2001 and 2003), EU-SILC (2006), AES (2007),

ICT, HETUS; ESS

23

TF4: cultural practices and social participation

• Results on cultural participation are difficult to compare - between European surveys and in comparison with specific national surveys: – cultural practices overestimated;

– main cause is the so called ‘output harmonization’, considerable variation in phrasing the questions in national languages; different modes of data collections.

• But a solution proposed: more ‘input harmonization’

- checking the translation of questions in national languages; harmonizing the modes of data collection as much as possible.

24

National cultural practices

• Inventories of 17 national surveys:– many methodological differences (mode of data collection and

sampling methods);– most countries distinguish between visits to different kinds of

performing arts and different kinds of heritage (museums, monuments, archaeological sites etc.);

– amateur practices and ‘informal’ cultural events are usually considered;

– media habits are not always included (national time use survey instead);

– seven national surveys also include questions on civic participation.

• TF4 output: > a comprehensive questionnaire of cultural

practices > the related list of indicators on cultural participation

25

TF4 proposal: a module on cultural practices

• Domains of cultural participation to be covered:– performing arts; heritage; visual arts and crafts; books and

press; libraries; film and video; radio, television and internet

• 3 aspects of cultural practices to be taken into account: – attending/receiving,

– amateur practices,

– social participation/volunteering

• Methodological guidelines to smooth differences:– population, reference period, data collection, sampling design

and size, measurement errors

26

TF4 conclusions

• The questionnaire - or a selection from it - should be used in a European survey which also covers civic participation.

• In the short term: new 2014 EU-SILC: a chance to collect reliable and comparable data on cultural and civic participation in the European Union:– to ensure reliability and comparability, ‘input harmonization’

should be used in this survey and the data collection modes used in different Member States should be harmonized as much as possible;

– TF4 experts should be involved in the preparation of this module.

27

TF4 specific recommendation

• In the long term: a common European survey on cultural practices which also includes sports, civic and social participation:– if repeated periodically such survey is the best way to measure

social progress in the EU

– TF4 realizes the problems to conduct such a large survey in the near future.

Nevertheless, a pilot project, could be supported by the European Commission and carried out by a limited number of interested Member States.

28

ESSnet general conclusions and recommendations

• Priority of producing European data on culture depends on:– their availability

– their comparability

• Organize norms for European cultural statistics:– acknowledge the ESSnet framework and developments so that

EU common standards be effective

– develop a larger statistical programme for culture (see Priority F in Work plan for culture 2011-2014)

• Better coverage in the EU harmonized surveys of cultural sector (e.g. in the SBS)

29

ESSnet general conclusions and recommendations

Request for a more detailed level of classifications used in harmonized surveys (e.g. of NACE and ISCO in the EU-LFS)

Specific workshops to be organised: – on employment estimates, – but also on non-market oriented units active in cultural sector,

on international trade in cultural goods and services, on copyrights

In the long run, developments of the cultural satellite accounts and improvement of statistical classifications as regards cultural items.

..

ESSNet on culture Statistics

continue collaborative workcontinue collaborative work

and and

DO IT TOGETHERDO IT TOGETHER

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTIONTHANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION